Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?
Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slaves to Abbasid (ca 750)

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you

How an organization of islamic crimes (OIC) violates Human Rights

Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite

The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of Vikings.

It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!

Ask yourself, why can't racist islam (OIC) accept Human Rights? The answer reveals the difference between totalitarianism and freedom. And even if everyone converted to islam we'd still have Sharia sexism.
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!

Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Myth vs Truth

Japan's Hayabusa landed and returned to Earth many years before Europe's Rosetta failed to do so.

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Klevius listens' to BBC: Should muslim women be allowed to eat bananas? Maybe, but that's about it, is it? And why is the black Mayor of Katrina in jail? Bush's fault?


 Muslim "jokes" - and BBC "jokes"




BBC's presenter-of-islam/muslims-in-a-"better"(non-sharia)-light, Edward Sturton today presented a "muslim comedian" (you can't possibly be a "muslim comedian" because of sharia blasphemy laws etc. - either you're an apostate or the joke so tame that not even a jihadi bothers about it) who was so brave that he dared to crack a joke about a muslim imam who had allegedly made a fatwa denying women from eating bananas. What a hero, don't you think, no! But to be sure this "muslim comedian" had to ask some muslims in the audience first whether it was ok, though.

 BBC's Edward Sturton also tried to squeeze in completely irrelevant Bush criticism in a report on Katrina. "Why wasn't he there now ten years after?" As Klevius doesn't know how difficult Edward Sturton's mental handicap might be, there is no reason to blame him for such a stupid comment. However, considering BBC's alleged partiality policy, wouldn't it have been appropriate to follow up with a short comment informing compulsory license fee and taxes paying Brits that the disaster was caused by local people - not federal. Bush didn't do anything wrong re. Katrina - quite the contrary, he was really keen to show up and help - but because of all the media hate against him he would probably have felt uncomfortable there. Moreover, one might see it as a nice gesture from Bush's side not to show up and thereby avoid a possible situation where he should have been forced to "defend" himself by pointing to the real culprits, the black mayor who is now in jail and his local accomplices.

But ten years ago all was covered (in media) by hip hop agitators such as Kanye West shouting platitudes like "George Bush doesn't care about black people."

In accordance with federal law, President George W. Bush directed the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, to coordinate the Federal response. Chertoff designated Michael D. Brown, head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as the Principal Federal Official to lead the deployment and coordination of all federal response resources and forces in the Gulf Coast region. However, according to Brown, Governor Blanco resisted their efforts and was extremely unhelpful. Governor Blanco and her staff of course disputed this, and Brown was recalled to Washington and Coast Guard Vice Admiral Thad W. Allen replaced him as chief of hurricane relief operations. Three days after the recall, Michael D. Brown resigned as director of FEMA in spite of having received recent praise from President Bush.

Internal e-mails from Brown showed that he was already planning to leave FEMA at the time Katrina hit. The same suggestion was made by members of Congress during a hearing on what went wrong during Katrina. Brown concentrated his testimony at that hearing on alleging that Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin bore most, if not all, of the blame for the failures in the response to Katrina, and that his only fault had been not to realize sooner their inability to perform their respective duties.

Local and state governments headed by the now jailed Mayor Nagin of New Orleans and Louisiana Governor Blanco were later criticized for failing to implement New Orleans' evacuation plan and for ordering residents to a shelter of last resort without any provisions for food, water, security, or sanitary conditions. Among other serious failures the blacl Mayor Ray Nagin (whom  Kanya West came to defend by spitting at Bush) delayed his emergency evacuation order until 19 hours before landfall, which led to hundreds of deaths of people who could not find any way out of the city.

Polls showed most blame was directed at state and local governments. And this despite an overwhelming media and hip hop campaign against Bush!


If islam is squeezed to fit the most basic of Human Rights - i.e. abandoning Human Rights violating sharia - then that would mean the definitive cure against Klevius "islamophobia". 



What do you think about that Jeremy Corbyn?




Klevius wrote 10 years ago (do note that 10 yrs ago Klevius still used capitals - today he's if possible, even more disgusted):

Saturday, September 17, 2005

There aren't "1,1 billion Muslims". In fact, there are none*! Only a looming & anti-democratic/anti-human rights pan-Arabic**/Islamic sexist loophole!

There used to be some 2-3 billion communists. Most people now consider their worldview more or less extreme. But where are the communists today?

And whereas communism's milder relative, social demcracy, may be described as a democracy-sponging fascism/national socialism without weapons, Islam is ALL OF THEM! It sponges on democracy, it abuses human rights, and it keeps its weapons and sexist/totalitarian objectives!

Lenin's What Is To Be Done?, when it was first published in 1902, was accepted by leading Russian social democrats

It's also no coincidence that Hitler's NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers Party) supplanted the Social Democrats asas the largest party in the Reichstag in the democratic election of 1932!

A system of moral based on negative human rights or fascism? Political Islam, a much meaner relative to parasitic (i e transition of tax money to itself and its own bureacracy rather to the people) social democracy (see Angels of Antichrist - kinship vs. social state) is today the main threat against democracy. Sadly, democrats seem to bother the least!

Not all of Christianity is fundamentalist, but all of Islam is!

According to a study on the texts of ten main religions the Koran (the book of the "peaceful" Islam) is by far the most warlike and violent, whereas Buddhist (remember the huge, unique Buddha statues the Islamists destroyed in Afganistan before Bush liberated the country!) texts are by far the most peaceful. The New Testament came second. The Old Testament, although not even close to the Koran, contains some violence, but remember it's also more than 1000 years older! Furthermore, the Koran doesn't even try to problematize its abundance of and encouragement to violence!

But what is perhaps most astonishing with Islam is that many (and some of them people who otherwise don't use to have problem with reason) seem to defend its extreme sex segregation/sexism by referring to conditions that "used to be even worse"!
The evasions abt Islam are seemingly endless and widely accepted no matter how cracked they are. A fanatic and dangerous wish to blink obvious facts! A wish for a pesonal loophole, that's stronger than the fear of violent and totalitarian fascist ideologies?

From Stalin and the killing fields of Pol Pot to Islamic dictatorship and Arabic racism and the systematic killing and raping in Sudan/Darfur (silenced and belittled by the Bush-condemners who simultaneously support Islam)! Do we ever learn?

Note! To be non-religious or atheist has nothing to do with communism etc. Or the other way round: A true commitment to the Holy negative human rights is a road to a non-totalitarian/non-fascist/non-racist/non-sexist ideological approach between global humans. It's a myth that we need rigid religious systems for upholding moral, law and order. Look around and you will in fact be proven the contrary (see World Values Survey & A formula for a world "religion" based on negative human rights and true attachment)!

It's, in, fact, precisely the black "moral loopholes" in Islam that makes it equally attractive as the German national-socialist working party (a branch of German social democracy) fascism in the 1930's. Whereas negative human rights "only" offer a universal logic for coping with everyone, Islam offers (apart from its main task as pan_Arabism) a variety of possibilities for hatred, contempt and separatism, confined in a repressive and rigid set of rules etc, which, furthermore, are not only open, but encouraged to violence on different levels.

Real attachment or evil gang/group superficiality (sometimes confusingly like ethnicity)?

What is needed on top of the idea of negative human rights is true attachment between kins and friends instead of the superficial gang/member/group-"attachment" offered by suspicious religious and other systems of belief.

Weird children/youngsters who have been raised/fostered by their alikes constitute a fast growing criminal problem for the world. But why are they detached from the rest of us? Because they want to? I don't think so. I think they need both, all the time. And if someone has to go sometimes, it should rather be the weirdies, shouldn't it? But today the reality is almost always the opposite (read more abt attachment, delinquency and sex segregation on Childless child psychoanalysts in search for motherhood/femininity!


Looking for extremism in Islam? Stop looking. Just read the extreme hatred, contempt and sexism in the Koran, and consider that it's supposed to be the true heart of this "religion" And consider that Islam's ultimate and totalitarian/sexist/racist goals, Sharia and world hegemony, are wowen into a pattern that makes it much more like fascist "world-communism" than you might expect (And please, don't seek comfort in twisted Andalucian myths abt "the good Islam" - it's no different than the myths abt "the good communist paradise"!)! In fact, it's only its hereto failure for hegemony that disguises its real danger! Isn´t that enough extremism for a warning lamp to lit? But some might argue that one should try to "interprete" away those evil parts of the Koran. Well, I for one, think it's easier to "interprete" away Islam as a whole as long as it contains the Koran, and as long as this Koran is tied to this "religion" in a way that makes bin Laden's reading of it equally possible as someone else, just as we used to do with the extreme Utopia of a communist society. No one knows what is "true Islam", no more than what was "true communism" (Pol Pot?). But what we do know is that Islam is full of possibilities and scary openings (incl the eager supply of Arab oil-money) for weirdies on all levels! Do we really need to give this faceless and irresponsible ideology, full of evil potential, even the slightest chance? Most other ways of fighting poverty and inequality are probably preferable. Let's start with fair tax/citizen salary/health/education/housing insurance for everyone everywhere. A huge opportunity for UN - if we could only get rid of those anti-democratic Islamic states promoting genocide, rapes etc while hindering real democratic development within the UN!

One of the world's foremost "moderate Muslims" now seems to be king Abdullah of Jordan. Why? Because most Islamists have already realized that lunatic terrorism has become a stupid dead end, and because "moderate Islam" is (like Islam in all forms) essentially a slogan for gaininng power. Furthermore it's Islam's total lack of religious authority and responsibility that gives it its real, contourless power, but also its racist/sexist/fascist appearances! This means that while many talk in the name of Islam or name their particular ethnicity Muslim, the only thing they really have in common is that they boost Pan-Arabic Islam (which, in turn, is equally diversified and split)! And much of the sexist/racist(infidels, unbelievers etc)/totalitarian texts in Koran can never be reconciled with negative human rights, de-sex segregation and real democracy, no matter how far the interpretations are stretched.

Persian Mirror: Human rights before Islam and Cultural Genocide in the name of Islam

Guardian: "Defying the view that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, Rice said, ``No cause, no movement, and no grievance can justify the intentional killing of innocent civilians and noncombatants.'' She added, ``This is unacceptable by any moral standard.'' "

Klevius comment: Except one - the Koran, the main tool for pan-Arabism since the 7th century (back then with swords and robberies - now with oil money, mosques, youth organizations, and Koran schools disguised as schools)! Totalitarian and anti-democratic texts that would be immediately forbidden if published by any other political actors! Also read abt the Islamists on Chatham House and Islam's real Achilles' heal - sex segregation, on Sex segregatioon Feminism and Religion

*For those in need of elucidation: According to Roger Scruton no one is really in charge for what a Muslim should do or be. Also see Religion of peace?

**Non-Arabic Islamic states may be historically compared to non-Roman Christian states.

Islam - the compilation (with the help of the Medina Jews*** that were later killed for not obeying the leaders of that very "Islam") - of totalitarian, sexist and racist ideas spiced with violent advices for how to kill, rape and humiliate "non-believers"/"infidels" - etymologically means, quite logically, "to surrender and obey". However, Islam as a name of an ideology based on a compilation of medieval ideas, is very recent.

*** Who told Mohammed (an orphan himself) abt Abraham's "illegitimate" son Ishmael ("an outcast," "whose hand is against every man, and every man's hand against him" in Gen. xvi.12). The Islamists then used Ishmael as a convenient way to link their new "religion" to the old Judeo/Christian tradition. For more on the topic see Homo Filius Nullius, Angels of Antichrist, Was Jesus religious? Demand for resources and other writings by Peter Klevius!

Today we may thank Bush, Condi, Blair, the Marines and all the others who have contributed to Afganistan's first, free, true election. But we may also consider the fact that the puzzling fact that oil-wealthy Arab nations gave much more aid to the Katrina victims in the US than to their own "Muslim" brothers and sisters in Íraq after the horrible bridge disaster recently. The number of victims was about the same! Could the promotion of pan-Arabic Islamism possibly be involved?

So who are the Muslims?!





.

No comments: